The Supreme Court held that a lawyer’s misconduct, even when acting in a private capacity, can warrant disbarment if it involves dishonesty, abuse of authority, and conduct unbecoming of a member of the legal profession. Atty. Victor V. Deciembre was disbarred for filling up blank checks without authority, using them to file unfounded criminal suits, and engaging in deceitful practices. This decision underscores the high standard of morality and integrity expected of lawyers, both in their professional and personal lives, to maintain public trust in the legal profession.

Blank Checks and Betrayal: When a Lawyer Exploits Trust for Personal Gain

This case revolves around a complaint filed by Eugenia Mendoza against Atty. Victor V. Deciembre, seeking his disbarment for fraudulent acts involving blank postdated checks. The core legal question is whether an attorney’s actions in a private capacity, specifically the unauthorized filling up of blank checks and using them to file unfounded criminal suits, constitute gross misconduct that warrants disbarment. This decision highlights that lawyers are held to a higher standard of conduct, which extends beyond their professional duties.

Mendoza, a mail sorter, borrowed P20,000 from Rodela Loans, Inc., through Deciembre, secured by twelve blank checks. Despite making remittances totaling P35,690.00, Deciembre filled up two checks for P50,000 each, claiming they were in exchange for a P100,000 loan Mendoza denied receiving. Deciembre then filed criminal cases based on these checks. He argued his actions were in his private capacity, not as a lawyer, and aimed to vindicate his rights as a private citizen.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) initially recommended a one-year suspension, later modified to indefinite suspension. The IBP found Deciembre guilty of dishonesty, noting inconsistencies in his allegations and the improbability of the transactions. Commissioner Funa highlighted that Deciembre’s story about a second loan was fabricated, pointing out the illogical lack of interest factored into the checks. Furthermore, the complainant earned less than P6,000 per month. Who would lend P200,000.00 to an employee earning such a salary?

The Supreme Court disagreed with the IBP’s recommendation of indefinite suspension, opting instead for disbarment. The Court emphasized that practicing law is a privilege contingent on maintaining the qualifications required by law, including a high sense of morality and honesty. Any act that brings reproach upon the legal profession cannot be tolerated. A lawyer may be disciplined for acts committed even in his private capacity if those acts tend to injure the legal profession’s reputation.

The Court cited Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates lawyers to uphold the law, avoid dishonest conduct, and maintain the integrity of the legal profession. Deciembre’s failure to mention the P100,000 loan in initial statements, combined with the improbable circumstances surrounding the checks, indicated a pattern of harassment. The checks being refuted by complainant, dated January 15 and 20, 2000, May 16, 2001, May 30, 2001 and June 15, 2001 had its dates, amounts and payee’s name all typewritten.

The Court drew parallels to similar cases involving Deciembre, such as Olbes v. Deciembre and Acosta v. Deciembre, where he engaged in similar misconduct with other postal employees. In Olbes v. Deciembre, the Supreme Court addressed a case with similar facts, stating,

“The Court, in imposing the penalty of indefinite suspension on respondent, found his propensity for employing deceit and misrepresentation as reprehensible and his misuse of the filled up checks, loathsome.”

. These cases revealed a pattern of demanding excessive payments, filling blank checks with fictitious amounts, and filing unfounded criminal suits to harass borrowers.

The Court emphasized that Deciembre’s actions demonstrated a perversity of character that merited his removal from the legal profession. The power to disbar is exercised cautiously, but the seriousness of Deciembre’s offenses warranted such action.

“Indeed, the Court will not hesitate to remove an erring attorney from the esteemed brotherhood of lawyers where the evidence calls for it,”

the Court stated. This power is used to preserve the legal profession’s purity by removing members who prove unworthy of the responsibilities of an attorney.

Therefore, the Supreme Court found Atty. Victor V. Deciembre guilty of gross misconduct and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and ordered his disbarment. The Court’s decision serves as a strong reminder that lawyers must maintain the highest standards of ethical conduct, both in their professional and private lives, to safeguard the integrity of the legal profession and uphold public trust in the administration of justice.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether an attorney’s actions in a private capacity, such as filling up blank checks without authorization and using them to file unfounded criminal suits, constitute gross misconduct warranting disbarment. The Supreme Court found that it does, emphasizing that lawyers are held to a high standard of ethical conduct, both professionally and privately.
What did Atty. Deciembre do that led to his disbarment?	Atty. Deciembre filled up blank checks provided by a borrower, Eugenia Mendoza, without her authorization and used these checks as the basis for filing unfounded criminal cases against her. He also engaged in deceitful practices regarding the terms of the loan and subsequent payments.
Can a lawyer be disciplined for actions taken in their private capacity?	Yes, a lawyer can be disciplined for acts committed even in their private capacity if those acts tend to bring reproach on the legal profession or injure public opinion of the profession. The Court emphasized that a lawyer cannot divide their personality as an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another.
What provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility did Atty. Deciembre violate?	Atty. Deciembre violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01, which requires lawyers to uphold the law and avoid dishonest conduct, and Canon 7, Rule 7.03, which states that lawyers should not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on their fitness to practice law.
What was the significance of the checks being typewritten?	The fact that the dates, amounts, and payee’s name on the contested checks were typewritten supported the complainant’s claim that Atty. Deciembre filled them up without authorization. This contrasted with a previous check filled out in the complainant’s handwriting, lending credence to her version of events.
How did the Supreme Court view the inconsistencies in Atty. Deciembre’s statements?	The Supreme Court noted that Atty. Deciembre failed to mention a supposed second loan in his initial statements and pleadings, raising doubts about its validity. The inconsistencies and improbabilities in his narrative led the Court to believe that he fabricated the loan to harass the complainant.
What role did the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) play in this case?	The IBP investigated the complaint, initially recommending a one-year suspension, which was later modified to indefinite suspension. While the Supreme Court ultimately decided on disbarment, the IBP’s investigation and recommendations contributed to the Court’s decision-making process.
What is the legal basis for disbarring an attorney?	The legal basis for disbarring an attorney lies in the Court’s power to regulate the legal profession and ensure that its members adhere to high standards of ethical conduct. Disbarment is a severe penalty reserved for cases of gross misconduct that demonstrate an attorney’s unfitness to practice law.

The disbarment of Atty. Victor V. Deciembre serves as a crucial reminder of the ethical responsibilities that all lawyers must uphold. This decision reinforces the principle that lawyers are expected to maintain the highest standards of honesty and integrity, both in their professional and personal lives, and that failure to do so can result in the loss of their privilege to practice law.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: EUGENIA MENDOZA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. VICTOR V. DECIEMBRE, RESPONDENT., A.C. No. 5338, February 23, 2009